tv [untitled] December 13, 2011 12:30am-1:00am PST
number of dogs has to deal with the ability to clean up, to make sure that the dogs are not running out into the street, to make sure that there is not a pack mentality, so from an animal welfare -- welfare perspective, as well as a public safety perspective, i think once you get to nine dogs, you are pushing it, but i defer to the committee. supervisor wiener: thank you. ms. ballard, did you have anything to add? anything further, calling this? supervisor cohen: given to what stabbed just said, let's start with something, and then we can come back and we can make changes. >> i appreciate that. i have to say, when i introduced the legislation and i stated seven dogs, one of my colleagues, who shall remain
nameless came up to me and said, "seven dogs, that is too high," and i said, "it is currently in affinity." i think supervisor cohen's poin t is a good one. president chiu: should we adopt that? ok. supervisor wiener: since we cannot do this today, i will say that we should move this to january. if somebody publicly commented today, my understanding is that they cannot comment on the ninth. is that right? present -- supervisor mar: our city attorney. >> because this is put for notice, you would have to allow people to comment at least on
the fee aspect. supervisor wiener: so we have heard a lot, and unless you are feeling the burning need, i think this will be a shorter item next time, so thank you, everyone. supervisor mar: thank you. ms. miller, we are going to continue a item number one, but we will recess for about three minutes so that we can change the room.
supervisor mar: there were a number of speakers mentioned, and i want to know if these people can come and speak, and then i will start with the cards. ms. hester? >> sue hester we thought that we had a long shot, so it is the courteous thing to do. we will wait until they are done so they do not have to wait. supervisor mar: so let me read cards. john, bob, aldo, nanette, jim
chapel, jennifer warburg, ernestine waters, bob, tim, julia sullivan, thomas ryan, dave stockdale. i have called a number of cards. i still have quite a few more, but if people could come forward. thank you. >> hi, my name is nannette. i am a middle class single mom who lives in the district, and i am here as a member of the golden gateway club. we are excited about the renovation that is going to happen at the club. we come here because we love to swim outside. our kids take swim lessons and good to camp there in the summer. although there are likely disappointed tennis players. i believe that the new club will
serve as majority of members in a much improved facility. for most of us, the new club proposes a much better, larger pool facility, greater recreation and more kids programs as well as popular exercise and yoga classes, which we all look forward to enjoying their. in addition, the new park's that's around the club will add the public recreation and be an amenity to the surrounding residents, and mothers and families city-wide. however, it is just as important -- sorry. just as important as the experience that the parks will provide elsewhere in the city, imagine coming to the farmers' market to shop on saturday morning and then walking across the and barker derryl to active, urban park, while having lunch at a partially-type restaurants,
where kids can play nearby in an enclosed yard. experiences like this along our waterfront are rare and worth fighting for. it is no wonder we are having a hard time keeping families here. please keep in mind that the waterfront should be for all of us, not just the people who are lucky enough to live there and want to keep all for themselves. i think it is time for a change, time to update the club to better serve the old and the young. it is time to create a public park or the kids can play in the sculpture garden. it is time to open up jackson and pacific to the waterfront. it is time to improve security with pedestrian walkways and outdoor cafes, and it is time to move ahead with 8 washington. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is bob, and i am with the barbary coast neighbor
association representing thousands of residents and businesses located in the northeast waterfront area. i'd like to focus on the fact that the property being proposed for development is currently subject to an 84-foot height limit. the developers of the eight washington project as proposed would like more. they would like more height, up to 136 feet along drums street, which will create significant shatters in the area. they want more balkan, which will block the iconic views of telegraph hill. now, we certainly agree that seawall lot 351 should be more than a parking lot, and we believe that this blog can support attractive development that conforms with the existing height limits. about one year ago, there was a project by the neighborhood, and others came together with asian neighborhood design to develop the northeast embarcadero vision plan.
this plan looks at all of the lots that are being -- all of the seawall lots that could be developed along the north waterfront area and looks for what would be a logical development associated with these particular lots, and that is the development would conform with the existing height limits. the development consists of facilities such as hotels, parks, a bicycle center, moderate priced housing, restaurants, cafes, so we believe that these types of development would clearly provide the port with potential revenue. they would also be advantageous for both the city and the residence as a whole, so, again, let me emphasize that the asian neighbors and design plan takes an integrated approach of looking at potential development for all of the lots that would
be, i think, very agreeable with most of the residents. there is, at this point, only one chance that we have to develop these parcels along the waterfront, and we are concerned that that chance is potentially slipping away. just recently, as you are probably aware, the planning commission has opened the door to tossing out well over a 40 year consensus policy that consisted of not raising the height limit along the northern waterfront. we believe that compromising these height limits would allow high-rises along the embarcadero and that that would be bad public policy. in the end, we hope that the board of supervisors carefully considers the slippery slope that we are on that would be created by spot zoning for large buildings all along our city's finest boulevard, the an orchid barrel. in summary, in closing, we urge
you to oppose any increase in the existing high limits along the north waterfront area. thank you. >> sir, i just wanted to mention that you mention the community's vision of the waterfront study, and a number of other seawall lots aside from 351. it looks to me that it is 320, 321, 322, and 324. the residents who commute -- did the community mission, for what would be done with those jon? >> yes, and i believe they're all covered in that report, and it consists in general of the items that i mentioned in my talk. supervisor mar: ok, thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. tim on behalf of the housing action coalition, and we have supported the eight waterfront project for years. it is consistent with our goals, and we believe and offers
benefits to both waterfront and the entire city. despite the heated rhetoric and controversy, which is being discussed is just a very simple question. should the law 351 remain a parking lot or not? this has been opposed by relatively small group of people, and good people, let's be clear. they are not bad folks, but they are overwhelmingly older, white, upper-middle-class, and they live in one of the most pleasant neighborhoods of our city, and these poor souls are aggrieved and distressed because new housing is being proposed for their neighborhood, but it must be noted that their housing displaced earlier residents. it was not sand dunes back there when the golden gate was developed. by contrast, the eight washington project displaces no one unless you consider the private swimming and tennis club.
we also noted that many of the opposition comes from those who have lived in rent control housing, and this is a curious platform from which to oppose new housing. the accusation is that it will become a luxury housing, something we would freely concede. after all, some of this is the most valuable land in northern california. but on the other hand, through all of our policies, the city has said its land is developed for private housing, it must pay for a large basket of benefits for the whole city, which this one clearly does. among other things, this would include rent payments to the city, $10 million in funding, and by the way, one is broke, and new park, and a new park and children's playground, in a recreational facility, and new public access to the waterfront. these are not small benefits, and i would ask you, with the city obtain a comparable rate of
return from a surface parking lot. on the proposed zoning heights, we are utterly mystified. this site is immediately adjacent to the tallest buildings on our city's skyline. the planning department has said repeatedly that these are appropriate and modest height increases at this location, so in the simple land use toys that faces is, we see two alternatives. one that can birds a current surface parking lot into a development that provides a long list of the elements for the whole waterfront and the whole city and one that prevents any change, keeps the parking lot, but in effect results in the city providing a large economic subsidy to one of its most privileged in neighborhoods, and if the city were to choose this option, we think the city would be the clear loser in this outcome. thank you. >> i am a program manager.
on behalf of the organizations, i want to express our support of the 8 washington project, not only for the waterfront but for the entire city. they have extensive review it and appreciate how the changes to the design over the years have improved the project. we would ask you first to consider how well the eight washington project conforms to the plan, the city is a guiding land use document from the 1990's. this plan itself was the subject of public hearings and input. a couple of years ago, following objections, the planning department conducted yet another study that supports the basic design principles of this project. this site has most likely been analyzed, reviewed, and been the subject of more public hearings than any other in the city history.
on the question of the proposed amendment for the zoning height, we are puzzled at why these should be controversial, given the location. the washington project would still only be a small fraction of the height of the embarcadero building, and one of the striking ironies about this controversy, it would be only one half the height of the closest residential building, the 40-year-old golden gate bridge apartment, where many of the opponents live. in the context of this area, the proposed building heights are modest compared to its much taller neighbors. the opponents of this project will never accept any revision that allows the conversion of seawall lot 351 from a parking lot to any other use. we have yet to hear the project upon its mckay's for how keeping a parking lot on this public land is a better outcome for our city than this proposal.
thank you. -- we have yet to hear the project opponents say how keeping a parking lot is better. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is paul. i am one of those who is concerned about a policy that seems to be sneaking into san francisco, which is one establishes an area plan, one sets up a program that says that area plan needs to be reviewed to see if it remains consistent, but we do not review it because it is too difficult and too complicated to do a good plan review periodically, but we have got this really need lot or a set of what that is not as developed as it might be, and
contrary to people who say i love a parking lot down by the embarcadero, that is not true. there are lots of good uses for that lot. one program jon at-bat specifically and has some nice ideas. -- one program looked at that. they are a real opportunity site for a major development that is done completely absent a form to plan review, a revision of an existing plant, a real understanding that if we do this, how does it play out in the long term with the san francisco long term goals and objectives? it does, this policy of looking at single projects and justifying them, because of the tremendous architectural benefit -- there is immense
environmental benefit, often stated very clearly and documented, it means that as citizens, we really do not know what an area plan means anymore. it means we do not really have a lot of confidence in a planning commission that recommends a zoning is an reasonings -- that recommends zonings and rezonings -- that provide some benefit to the city. maybe they do, and that is good, but let's look at it in part as a revision and understand the ramifications of the project in a bigger scope, not just is this really good for this developer and are beginning of a lot of money right now, which is not a good policy. thank you. >> good afternoon, committed. my name is tom ryan.
i am speaking here on behalf of the waterfront for all and justin, wfa. supervisors, wfa is strongly in support of 8 washington and believe is a meaningful opportunity to continue the waterfront revitalization spurred by the freeway and the renovation of the ferry building and piers. 8 washington will provide many benefits, including renovating the existing recreational facility and replacing a parking lot with a vibrant waterfront community of residential housing, new retail and restaurants, belowground parking, and three new public spaces. this is in the final part of the waterfront area, and this is an example of the type of responsible development that can occur on the waterfront with the support of the commission.
as to the subject of heights, initially, it was known for 84 feet across the board. most of us around the table felt that 84 feet was too high for the entire site, that it was more important to lower the height south of jackson so the views were preserved and that the feel of the open area was kept intact. the height at the embarcadero was lower than 84 feet, and the high rises were taller. this step approach actually lowered the height of the overall site. the average before was 84 feet. now, not. they are cleaning spot zoning is taking place. this is really distorting the picture. after a long and collaborative planning process that i took part in, the recommendation is to actually lower the heights in some areas and raise them in
others. that is exactly what 8 washington does. private tennis courts and parking, compared to the many public benefits that would be paid by the developer and future home owners, it is clear that this is an incredible deal for the port, the city, and the residents, especially the 99% like myself. i urge you to support this when it comes before you. justin amano. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is jennifer warburg. i am here representing a group which supports the seawall project. we believe that the proposed development is a significant improvement on the northern waterfront. 8 washington presents a unique opportunity to replace these with open space, housing, a renovated, as the official
club -- a renovated, space- efficient club, the addition of greenrooms to the project, and a 45 and its preferred playground -- and a 45 foot preferred playground. this bids the scale of the surrounding neighborhood. this reflects the scale of the surrounding buildings and allows for density. given the proximity to much taller buildings, including the golden gate bridge parkway, the scale is modest and appropriate. we would also point out that this comes out of the northern embarcadero design process with community stakeholders, organ design professionals, and planning staff. it yielded the height guidelines that have shaped the eight washington crotchet into its current form, including the manner in which it is in height as it draws near the water. we are pleased to note that
roger is located in proximity to many transportation lines, including bart -- we're pleased to note that the project is located in proximity to transportation lines. it will encourage them to bicycle, water, and ride transit as opposed to making a car trips. -- to bicycle, walked -- walk, and ride transit as opposed to making car trips. currently, pedestrians are met with the high green fence used to protect the tennis courts. this detracts in the belief from the pedestrian experience. we support the washington future -- we urge you to support the washington project when it comes before you in the future.
>> good afternoon. my name is dave stockdale. we operate the farmers market at the ferry building, and at -- in that capacity, i am representing my board, my staff, and the small businesses that come to the city on a regular basis and rely on the access and sense of community and strong visuals that are currently in our part of the waterfront. think about what used to be there. there has been radical change in recent years. what we are doing, we now represent the part of a resurrection, an example of best practices. we believe that the eight washington project is also an example of best practices, of a best use of that particular site, transforming it from a surface parking lot and private club to a multi layered project
with residences that we believe are at an appropriate height for the transition from the waterfront to the high-rises of downtown. activated public spaces which will support our residents, our visitors, our employees, and a real envisioned private club, which we had already heard from one member, it needs in needs, as well. i am a realtor, and i also liked the idea of new customers and maybe most important, continued access to parking for those of us operating small business in the area. admittedly, the project would create a short-term loss of parking during part of the construction phase, but there is going to be alternatives to the parking available at that time, because it is the long term benefits that we are after, and this is why we still support what can be, so let's continue with the revitalization of our waterfront.
we need to look forward and not always to the past. >> i am jim chapel, also representing spur, and i concur with the previous comments of ms. nordberg. it is important to understand the planning process that has gone into a washington and where it has come. this is out of place since you cannot get the principles and guidelines that have shaped eight washington to maximize the site for the public, not just for a private club members, a few neighbors, and cars. today, we have heard from some long retired city bureaucrats, and it was clear to me from their testimony that they have never seen the plan, because the project they are describing is not the project at eight washington. this was done with the help of
thousands of stakeholders recommending combining seawall lot 351 with the adjacent golden gateway land to develop housing. this plan has been almost fully implemented from the ferry building two pier 5. 8 washington is the last piece of the pulse poll, and the plan recommends exactly this type of -- is the last piece of the puzzle, and the plan recommends exactly this type of thing. an 84-foot high conforming project. the project was then put on hold at the request of president abbas chiu to go through a 16- month -- at request of president chiu go 316-month review process. there have been guidelines that have shaped the washington project in its current form. this is where the